Fashion Board 1-08-04 through 02-03-04

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
Has it occured to you that maybe they are really excellent lawyers and that you are the tool?

One just said to me on the phone (I'm not making this up):

-- "I believe that the definition of "[defined term]" is not robust enough in the document."

[10 minute soliloquy regarding his point omitted for everyone's sake]

followed by

-- "I believe that we have reached an accord on the opinion."

My notes on the call:

"[defined term]" not robust enough

I didn't really need to take notes on the call because he will be sending me a markup on the matter, but I jotted it down just for a good laugh.

TM, if that is you, I think I can kick your ass (with or without a severed arm).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
People worry more about implausible hypothetical situations after they get burned because the reps and warranties they put in a deal didn't cover something and they lost a ton of money.

But you big cats just keep going without sweating the small stuff. I like reading the cases that result.

No deal or settlement has ever been without a certain degree of risk. You cut the risk as much as you can, but it can naver be eliminated. For the cost of a complaint and a filing fee, any good lawyer can create miles of risk where the very finest agreement you could ever imagine seemed more impervious than the Hoover Dam.

I think you and I have different definitions of "implausible" and "relevant contingencies." BTW, there is no failsafe against a malpractice action. Law's a minefield. How many hundreds of baseless malpractice suits are filed every year where the claimant was basically just throwing a complaint at the wall to try to recoup a few bucks?

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
-- "I believe that the definition of "[defined term]" is not robust enough in the document."

God, that word is so overused.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
opine, no one w/o law degree has ever said this word.

Concur. Also, the plural of "merit." Normal people use the singular; lawyers like to imply there's more than one even when there isn't.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You're either drunk, retarded (or both)

If after 9 EST, almost certainly at least one of these.

if you think Billups could ever put up those numbers. I don't care what team he's on. McGrady is the team because he has to be. Billups doesn't even have the option.

This started with my saying picking Chauncey over McGrady wasn't a bad enough choice as to brand the GM a failure. Shit, the team that's got McGrady is a failure, isn't it?
I admit McGrady is a much better player in the sense of marquee appeal, but guess what, that kind of thinking is why there aren't too many newer banners hanging in the Garden. This is a team sport.
McGrady is averaging 25.7 ppg. Billups 19.5. But Billups' backcourt mate, Rip Hamilton is also averaging 19. If Hamilton's out, Billips could go up 6, easy. Now, I think McGrady may be shooting less this year, and probably could kick it up, but ppg isn't the point.

And let me reiterate, McGrady averages more assists than your precious point guard. Assists are how we judge the performance of point guards.

Its not that simple. Billups is the highest ranked point in the East this season, its not just assists. As to assists, Billups team circulates the ball through lots of hands every play. Anyone on the court could have made the last pass before a shot. Its not the same as a running team. The Piston build on Defense, and that cuts down running, and high stats for the point.
McGrady touches the ball and shoots or dishes for the shot a very high %.

Just answer this, and I'll know whether you're worth wasting my time on in future sports discussions: If you could trade Billups for McGrady, straight up, would you?

What does my team look like?
A team with a legit shot to make the finals (not win, make)?
A team with 2 guys who aren't McGrady, but certainly fill the position solidily (Hamilton and Prince)?
A team trying to build to win a championship, not just score lots of points, where the trade would take a solid piece of the puzzle (Billups) out for someone that really only adds a little to a spot you've got covered?
I really don't know what Joe Dumars would do. I know he passed on Rashid Wallace's Stats.
Again, McGrady is great, and you don't even mention his best quality. I think he's the most focused on D of the really high scorer, maybe since Jordan.

You're right. I'd rather have John Stockton than Michael Jordan any day. Hell, BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Bill Cartwright and Stacy King carried those Bulls team all those years.

This is the equivalent of calling me Hitler on Politics, but I'll bite. No. Keep Jordan.
Can I play? you're GM of the Nets. You gotta get rid of one guy. Who, Kidd or Richard Jefferson?

Tons of guys can score in the NBA, especially if the team isn't good otherwise. Ultimately, Billups is a solid piece of a very good team. He was not a bad choice.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The first guy is easy. Pick a few points you don't care about at all that are moderately important to them. Bump them up to near the top (partner at firm or 2nd chair at client). Dig in your heals. Let the debate roar. Throw fuel on the fire. Be unreasonable. Write memos. Have a grand time.

Meanwhile, let a junior sort out all the other issues, and get everything you care about tidied up and taken care of.

Then, very seriously, concede the point you've blown out of proportion to get the job done fast. Make it clear your concession is contingent on everyone working round the clock to do this in the next 48 hours. Don't give them time to think.

Second guy is actually more difficult. First, I try to turn them into a problem solver. Make the problem theirs and ask them to solve it. If this just leads to 89 pages of drafting to get what you would do in a paragraph, then you need to take control and drag them along. Go around them to clients. Those deals need a lot of top level folks getting their hands dirty.

I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
God, that word is so overused.

So? What do you want me to do about it?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
God, that word is so overused.

But unfortunately is not a lawyer-identifying word because of all those damn coffee and wine people. And spaghetti sauce people, I guess. Or is the advertising voice I hear in my head saying "Robusto Italian(o?)" talking about salad dressing?

"It is my understanding that . . ." -- my contribution to the lawyer talky thingamajig.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Paigow, get a grip. They're tools. A few of the benefits people are non-tool-y, but the toolishness of non-benefits NY lawyers is glaring and almost universal. I can only speak personally of corporate lawyers, but unless NY has the general rule (litigators are toolier than transactional types) backwards, the litigators are no doubt tools too.

Well, they're lawyers, so by definition . . .

Generally, I have not found NY lawyers (both lit and transactional types) to be any more or less tooly than our home grown. There have been ego/arrogance issues, but the worst I have experience in that regard is Houston-based Susman. They believe that everyone agrees they are mainly correct about everything.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
One just said to me on the phone (I'm not making this up):

-- "I believe that the definition of "[defined term]" is not robust enough in the document."

[10 minute soliloquy regarding his point omitted for everyone's sake]

followed by

-- "I believe that we have reached an accord on the opinion."

My notes on the call:

"[defined term]" not robust enough

I didn't really need to take notes on the call because he will be sending me a markup on the matter, but I jotted it down just for a good laugh.

TM, if that is you, I think I can kick your ass (with or without a severed arm).

Bright people write in active voice and usually use short sentences and layman's terms as much as possible. If you get a letter containing heretofore, aforementioned, or any Latin other than res judicata, chances are you're dealing with an amatuer. Any litigator worth his salt follow the advisory guidelines (or maybe it was a memo) laid down by the Fed Bench in the early or mid 90s stating that legal writing should be as short, consice and absent legalease as possible.

of course, I follow none of the writing rules on this board...

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
"It is my understanding that . . ." -- my contribution to the lawyer talky thingamajig.

I am heinously guilty of that one.

Not a contribution to the lawyer talky thingamajig, but my husband says that if you are ever at a meeting of businesspeople and you find a way to throw in the phrase "all boats float on a rising tide", people look at you and nod their heads like you have just said something very sage.

(also "you have to walk before you run" is a good one, but a little overused)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I am heinously guilty of that one.

Not a contribution to the lawyer talky thingamajig, but my husband says that if you are ever at a meeting of businesspeople and you find a way to throw in the phrase "all boats float on a rising tide", people look at you and nod their heads like you have just said something very sage.

(also "you have to walk before you run" is a good one, but a little overused)

Is "It is what it is" passe in NYC?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
"It is my understanding that . . ." -- my contribution to the lawyer talky thingamajig.

True, true. "It is my understanding that" is the kissing cousin of "indicated." It's the way you get to say whatever you want about what the other side said, and the burden shifts to them to show how their actual words --- which you're not, of course, responsible to remember --- could not have "indicated" that meaning or created that "understanding" on your part. If we had any balls we'd say "you said," not "you indicated"; if we had any balls we'd say "I thought," not "it was my understanding that."

Using the passive voice is just gravy --- it's a way to remove the blame for any faux misunderstanding from you and to project it on the circumstances, of which you are always a mere victim. It's also a passive-aggressive form of conflict avoidance, by making it look like you're not saying the other guy lied, when in fact that's the impression you're trying to create.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Not a contribution to the lawyer talky thingamajig, but my husband says that if you are ever at a meeting of businesspeople and you find a way to throw in the phrase "all boats float on a rising tide", people look at you and nod their heads like you have just said something very sage.

You must prune back the branches in the graden in winter to allow for growth in the Spring.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Well, they're lawyers, so by definition . . .

Generally, I have not found NY lawyers (both lit and transactional types) to be any more or less tooly than our home grown. There have been ego/arrogance issues, but the worst I have experience in that regard is Houston-based Susman. They believe that everyone agrees they are mainly correct about everything.

Maybe the rules are "Litigators are tools" and "NY lawyers are tools." Obviously, with such broad statements, there are exceptions to the rules.

This would also explain the general perception of lawyers as tools, since people mostly see litigators like The Texas Hammer (who seems like he'd be a real tool, but that's kinda good if he's on your side).